Tuesday, June 24, 2014

You may well have seen by now that there's an expletive-ridden post on Better Nation attacking Stuart Campbell for his supposed "misogyny", and also berating Robin McAlpine for speaking up in Campbell's defence. It's written by the blogger Glasgow Sex Worker, who I have absolutely no problem with - I've read her blog over the last couple of years and found myself agreeing with a reasonable amount of what she writes, and she even left a kind comment here once. But it does have to be said that it's extremely unlikely that James Mackenzie would even have allowed Stuart Campbell's name to be mentioned on Better Nation unless it had been in the context of a full-on character assassination. Subtlety on the Wings question isn't an option in Mackenzie-world - he presents his readers and followers with something akin to the moronic George Bush choice of "you're either with us, or you're with the terrorists". Anyone who doesn't think Stuart Campbell is an unspeakable monster unfit for human interaction is likely to quickly find themselves "unpersonned" by Mackenzie (although I'm not sure how much that matters anymore - he did it to me last year, and only a small handful of others unfollowed me on Twitter in a subsequent show of 'solidarity'). His obsession with RevStu has reached the point where he just assumes that anyone disagreeing with him from a certain angle must be motivated primarily by "Wings love" - in my case it just never even occurred to him that (self-centred though it sounds) I was far more troubled by the deeply unpleasant and untrue things he had said about me than I was about his anti-Wings rants.

Recently, Better Nation has dropped all pretence at being interested in debate, and has barred comments on most posts. Curiously, though, today's post is allowing comments - albeit probably only on a highly selective basis. So far there have been two which defend Stuart Campbell, but it must be severely open to question whether Mackenzie would have let those through if they hadn't been written by a woman (they doubtless will still have infuriated him, but his self-image as a feminist would be inconsistent with silencing someone who is verifiably female). Although he's claimed in the past that individual authors have control over moderation on their own posts, it emerged that Jenny Kemp hadn't been responsible for deleting dissenting comments on her post about domestic violence. We'll see whether any dissenting male voices ever make it through today - my guess is that, at most, Robin McAlpine might be permitted a right to reply (followed by a one-to-one 'tutorial' from Mackenzie, naturally).

Incidentally, you might remember that Mackenzie was strangely indignant last year that I referred to him as the "Better Nation supremo", presumably because it didn't buy into the fiction that BN is still a group blog with no single person in ultimate editorial control. Intriguingly, he's recently started to tacitly acknowledge that the distinction between the blog and himself is largely bogus - the Survation polls he has co-commissioned are now referred to interchangeably as "our polls" and "my polls". And in the STV report on the most recent poll, he was billed as the "Better Nation founder", presumably because that's how he described himself. Nowhere in the report was it mentioned that he's a former media chief for the Greens, or even that he's a Yes supporter - and that shows the potential benefit for the Greens in using Mackenzie as a proxy when commissioning these polls, which is what I strongly suspect may be going on.

I used to follow James despite knowing his intolerant attitude towards anyone he disagreed with. Then I got fed up of his obsession with Wings and unfollowed him. Then last week he said he would block anyone who mentions Wings or speaks up for him. I muted him then (I try to reserve actual blocking only for spammers).

Really I find that those who have taken a disliking to Wings seem to take on a completely hysterical hatred of him. I've personally seen all the so-called evidence and little of it points to their claims. I do disagree with some of his comments on transgenders but I respect his right to say it. On top of that, a regular comment who happens to be trans said she did not feel his comments were transphobic.

I suppose in James' and the rest of the Anti Wings Cult's eyes that would be some form of Stockholm syndrome on behalf of that person.

Currently Richard Nabavi is chief among the many Murdoch arse-lickers at politicalbetting trying to pretend Camneron's own spindoctor, close friend and confidant Coulson being found Guilty is of no consequence.

Here's what Nabavi said about Brown's spindoctor McBride.

"if you are asking whether I agree with the sentiment that "Brown dragging his heels on an apology was a complete disgrace and had McBride crossed the line into illegality Brown should have resigned", then the answer is Yes."

So there we have Nabavi clearly agreeing Brown should have resigned if Brown's spin doctor McBride was involved in illegal actions. We must all presume he's demanding the incompetent fop Cameron resign today, must we not?

Or can we conclude he's a massive hypocrite with zero credibility on these matters as usual.

LOL

"stuff the jocks" Smithson also has his head in the sand which is hardly surprising since he does little other than spout the feeble lib dem spin he has been told to by Clegg's ostrich faction these days.

Sorry to raise it again James but this really needs pointing out today of all days.

There are around 5000 victims of phone hacking (so far) with several hundred claims against the perpetrators now active or pending.

They include 7/7 bombing victims. bereaved parents, and relatives of soldiers killed in Afghanistan since most of them are not celebs but ordinary people who were considered 'fair game' by Murdoch's lackeys.

Yet some of the most amusing tory twits are still shrieking witlessly about Coogan and Hugh Grant.

Lest the seriousness of the situation still escape them let me also point out that all it will take is ONE leak and a few short lines from either Brooks or Coulson to bring down this incompetent joke of a PM Cameron.

That's going to be over his head as long as he is PM and you need only look at his face when he made his pitiful 'apology' today to see that he knows it all too well.

If they doubt it then they simply haven't the faintest idea of how close Coulson and Brooks were to the incompetent fop Cammie or what Coulson's Guilty verdict means.

So they had better keep fervently praying Murdoch, Brooks or even Coulson don't decide to put the pressure on Cammie since this isn't over by a long shot. We also have the unfinished business of Leveson and quite a bit more unfinished business still to play out.

Look up Michael Wolff as he has come pretty close to revealing some of it.

Fact is I don't know if some of the most damning stuff gets out but it still could. Keep in mind that this is a fairly messy verdict so far so people will have to be circumspect for a while yet. But like I said anyone who thinks this is now all over doesn't have a clue what they are talking about.

It was supposedly all over after Goodman and Mulcaire were found guilty in 2007.

I again apologise James but I can't let a racist twat like Socrates blatantly lie through his teeth on PoliticalBetting without correcting him.

NO Socrates I didn't "leave". I was banned for no reason by the cowardly tory mod TSE which someone even as simple as yourself must know. You were the one who flounced off from PB vowing never to return, but you of course did.

I'm sure you do think politicalbetting is "nice" now that far-right nutcases like you and several others on PB can drool over child abuse stories and bang on about muslims endlessly.

Authoritarian dimwits like Socrates love to see those who refute their views banned and censored. (Socrates has called for various posters to be banned or silenced on PB because that's the kind of person he is) Socrates simply can't cope with anyone calling out his vile racist bullshit so he kept running squealing to the moderators to have them silence or banned.

Long answer, Lallands Peat Worrier does a good blog on it today though he's looking at it through the lens of wither it wold overturn Sheridan's conviction rather than simply did Coulson lie and whether that could lead any another cases. A lie which has quite a massive bearing on what Coulson was up to while actually in Cameron's employ, never forget.

The Herd also taking issue with an article in their beloved Spectator which points out that an Independent Scotland would mean the end of the Treaty of Union. They really do see us as a possession. Vile!